Israel will never have peace, as long as it has the Palestinians for neighbors. So, suppose we purchase a nice swath of central Australia (land is cheap). We disassemble all of the holy sites, places, and buildings, and move them…plus the 7 million Israelis. Now they have a secure homeland, with no unpleasant neighbors. Would it be worth doing?
Then we can let the Palestinians fight each other, to their heart’s content.
Sound like a plan?
It’s been tried (prior to the formation of Israel). I think you’ll find that the vast majority of modern Israelis won’t like the idea very much. I should note that before skimming through that Wikipedia page I thought the JAO was basically forced resettlement by Stalin, but the page implies that it was voluntary.
This shit again?
See?
It would be a good approach, but it won’t work. The establishment of Israel as a recognized nation was largely due to guilt following WWII. There might have been some poetic justice from carving a Jewish homeland out of the Germany at that time, but it still wouldn’t have satisfied the religious right perceived by Zionist Jews.
It’s not a “good idea.” It’s a terrible, offensive idea. It was a bad idea when the US moved Native Americans west and it would be a bad idea to resettle Israelis in Australia. Jews have a right to (at least shared) possession of their holy sites. If they wanted to “let the Palestinians fight it out” they could move en masse to any number of places that would be happy to have them. They haven’t.
I’m not sure about an historical right – after all, do I have a right to sites important to my Northern European heritage? However, it would be devastating for people who grew up on the land. Yanking people from what they legitimately feel to be their homeland, due to it actually being their homeland (as opposed to a more intellectual “well, my ancestors lived there a couple thousand years ago”) is not something to be undertaken lightly.
One question, Ralph. Are you under the impression that you can somehow isolate the Jewish holy sites from those significant to followers of Islam or Christianity? And are you under the impression that what makes those sites significant is simply the buildings themselves?
Well, inasmuch as the legal possession of those sites is not really contested, no.
I have to disagree with this oft-repeated premise. Jewish presence in the country was strong before WW2 broke out and sooner or later, the Brits would have left, just as they left all of their other colonies. It might have happened in 1960 rather than 1948, but the end result would have been the same - a vicious civil war, followed by an outside invasion, followed, perhaps, by Israeli independence.
The Holocaust pushed things forward, true, but it also deprived Israel of six million potential immigrants.
My thoughts: maybe (and perhaps probably not) there was a brief opening in the immediate aftermath of WWII for a new Jewish homeland to be carved out of Germany. But even if this was possible, politically (and I’m not sure it was), one can’t blame Jews for not wanting to stay in Europe any more, and for wanting to move to a place (as Alessan points out) that Jews were already living and building with the express purpose of having a homeland away from the whims of Europeans. Realistically I don’t know where it could have been aside from the place that Jews had been living in for millennia (though not as the majority), and that refugee Jews had been moving to for several decades.
South India (Cochin) would have been one option. There were a number of thriving Jewish communities in India prior to 1947.
Why is it that every time this stupid idea comes up, it’s the Israelis who are supposed to get thrown out of their land?
How about suggesting that the Palestinians relocate themselves?
(I have no interest in discussing the concept of re-locations. But I do think that just asking the question shows a lot about the prejudices of the people who raise the issue.)
I’m not saying Jews weren’t present there, the Zionist movement started well before then. But the circumstances of WWII led to the Brits ceding the land with broader international support because of the Holocaust. My only point was that if there was any other place to establish a Jewish state after WWII it would have made sense to take land from Germany. That didn’t happen, and as I already said it would not have been satisfactory for the Zionist movement. I don’t think it would have taken 12 more years either, it was bound to happen unless the influx of Jews into the area had been stopped somehow.
While we’re getting offended by the OP here, I’d like to register my offence as an Australian at the frankly idiotic notion that some Americans have that Australia is cheap. Clearly you’ve never been anywhere near the place if you imagine that.
We already figured it out from eating at Outback.
I would donate a very small amount to ship the OP to Greenland, beyond Internet access.
…which is, as far as I can tell, a place that’s some American’s kitschy idea of what Australian food should be like, and has no connection to anything actually, you know, Australian.
He was kidding. Outback (Steakhouse) is exactly what your idea of it is. Basically, it’s ordinary steakhouse food with vaguely Australian names and digeridoos on the wall.
Dude, Outback is 100% authentic Australian food. Have you even seen the commercials?
You got wooshed, bro.
They don’t even serve kangaroo there, the food well known to be the one of the three staples of the Australian diet along with Fosters Lager and shrimp on a popular doll.